6x17 panorama

While a Fuji 617 was my first MF camera I couldn't recommend
it for someone new to photography. It does one thing well but
not much else. Cropping a LF frame to the same aspect will give
the same results but allow for more flexibility: format, lenses,
movements.

Wouldnt I waste film then? Is it cheaper the 120film way?

Why 6x17 or large format ? Planning wall size murals ?

No, just 60x170cm, 60" width later. city , nihgt prolonged exposures with
cars passing in front of monuments and buildings, geometric erotic, people
in large group shots (schools, football, army,...) , etc.

..::SuperBLUE::. wrote:
While a Fuji 617 was my first MF camera I couldn't recommend
it for someone new to photography. It does one thing well but
not much else. Cropping a LF frame to the same aspect will give
the same results but allow for more flexibility: format, lenses,
movements.

Wouldnt I waste film then? Is it cheaper the 120film way?

Not cheaper for film but cheaper for the camera. Will you be shooting
enough so the cheaper 120 film will make up for the cost of the back etc?



Why 6x17 or large format ? Planning wall size murals ?

No, just 60x170cm, 60" width later. city , nihgt prolonged exposures with
cars passing in front of monuments and buildings, geometric erotic, people
in large group shots (schools, football, army,...) , etc.


Just 2feet by almost 6 feet?

Nick

Roger I. McMillan wrote:

Planning wall size murals ?

It doesn't take wall-size mural to spot the difference. I have 35 mm and
MF swing lens panorama cameras and the difference is just as striking as
between 35 mm and MF in general.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

In article ,
"Roger I. McMillan" wrote:

Cropping a LF frame to the same aspect will give
the same results but allow for more flexibility

Like hand holding? Shooting on the go at Moab or Death Valley? Carrying
just a few rolls of film and a meter rather then film holders, changing
bag, etc.?

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

At the risk of inviting the wrath of the LF purists, I was going to suggest
spending a few bucks and getting a Russian Horizon 202 panoramic on e-bay.
I have one and it's fun. I modified a negative carrier for my 35mm - 2 1/4
square enlarger to accomodate the size - its a 24 x 54 mm negative. Do all
my developing and enlarging in B&W at home.
However, if you want night exposures, forget it. The Horizon uses a
swinging lens, so no time exposures longer than 1/2 second, and no flash.
Otherwise, it takes a surprisingly good negative, and its fun to work within
the limitations.

".::SuperBLUE::." wrote in message
...
While a Fuji 617 was my first MF camera I couldn't recommend
it for someone new to photography. It does one thing well but
not much else. Cropping a LF frame to the same aspect will give
the same results but allow for more flexibility: format, lenses,
movements.

Wouldnt I waste film then? Is it cheaper the 120film way?

Why 6x17 or large format ? Planning wall size murals ?

No, just 60x170cm, 60" width later. city , nihgt prolonged exposures with
cars passing in front of monuments and buildings, geometric erotic, people
in large group shots (schools, football, army,...) , etc.

Pieter Litchfield wrote:
At the risk of inviting the wrath of the LF purists, I was going to
suggest
spending a few bucks and getting a Russian Horizon 202 panoramic on
e-bay.
I have one and it's fun. I modified a negative carrier for my 35mm -
2 1/4
square enlarger to accomodate the size - its a 24 x 54 mm negative.
Do all
my developing and enlarging in B&W at home.
However, if you want night exposures, forget it. The Horizon uses a
swinging lens, so no time exposures longer than 1/2 second, and no
flash.
Otherwise, it takes a surprisingly good negative, and its fun to work
within
the limitations.

And it gives amazingly sharp pictures of things out towards infinity.
Quite stunning, in fact.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Paul Owen via PhotoKB.com" wrote

Shorter than 90mm and the front and rear standards of most
[field] cameras will not allow focus as they are too close
together.

A monorail, such a Sinar, will go down to 45mm. There are
special double-bag bellows for use below 65mm.


I assume the Shen Hao back that produces 6x17 on a 4x5 camera works the same
way as the Da Yi one I've just been playing with does (indeed, I wouldn't be
surprised if they came from the same factory) I can't see how else it can
work. If that is so, the fact that the camera can take shorter lenses
doesn't mean that you can necessarily still focus them on the 6x17 back,
which I think is what Paul is getting at.

I just posted a preliminary review of the Da Yi which explains the issue, so
rather than repeat here what I've just written in that, I'll refer anyone
who wants an explanation to that post.



Peter

If the OP would like, I can post pictures of a handmade 4x5 that uses a 47mm
F5.6 Super-Angulon. It covers 56x120, ideal for a rollfilm back.

"Nick Zentena" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.equipment.large-format jjs
wrote:
You should be sure you want 6x17. 17cm requires 7" or better
enlarging equipment. It could get complicated or expensive
quickly. On the other hand, 12cm is common, and wide lenses
that cover it are easily found.


The wide angle part might not end up being true. A 75mm
Nikon should cover 6x17. To get something similar on 6x12
you'd need something around 58mm.

Maybe - but the widest lens I have that will cover 6x12 gives me a wider
horizontal AoV than the widest I have that will cover 6x17.

That's partly a reflection of the lenses I happen to have, but even if I did
have a 75mm that would cover 6x17, it still wouldn't give as wide an AoV as
my 38mm does on 6x12: I don't think it's possible to get as wide an AoV as
that on 6x17.

But then, I make the 38mm pn 6x12 to be the horizontal equivalent of a 12mm
on 135 film, so it's not the sort of perspective one needs very often! (The
75mm you suggest is the equivalent of a 16mm on 135, so it's already fairly
extreme.)

OTOH a 6x12 back can be had for relatively little.


With the emphasis on the word 'relatively', compared to other sized
film-backs!


Peter

In message , Pieter
Litchfield writes
At the risk of inviting the wrath of the LF purists, I was going to suggest
spending a few bucks and getting a Russian Horizon 202 panoramic on e-bay.

There's a rather huge 120-film version of the thing, too.
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday